A Memo To All: Let Us Now Celebrate Gibberish

November 24, 1985|By Linda Perney, Los Angeles Daily News.

LOS ANGELES — Everyone who works or has ever worked--anywhere--has gotten at least a few of them.

Unbidden, unsolicited, they arrive on desks--interoffice junk mail that is the flotsam and jetsam of corporate life, detailing everything from the minutiae of hiring procedures to the arcana of firing practices; the niceties of dress codes to the politics of smokers` policies; the cost-efficiency of time-saving tips and the time saved in cost-efficiency.

As politics used to be called the last refuge of scoundrels, so these missives might be called the last redoubt of the petty and the verbose.

What we`re talking here are memos.

Which brings us to Dan Jones, a man with a mission.

You may never have heard of him before, but Jones labors somewhere deep in the bowels of the California civil service, and he has set himself the task of showcasing the interoffice memo in all its ridiculousness.

``I`ve always admired the idea behind the Liars` Club and the Procrastinators` Club and the Dull Men`s Club,`` he says. ``And, being a middle manager in the government, I receive and write a lot of memos. I`m always looking for humor in them, a way to break up the stresses of the day.`` Since he started his club in November, Jones says he has gotten calls from all over the country, and memos have started coming in to the club (P.O. Box 979, Eldridge, Calif. 95431). Among those he has received is this one, written by another long-suffering bureaucrat who labors in the state motor pool:

``Twice in the past month we`ve had to clean up after someone who was shaving in the car. We are asking that all users refrain from shaving in state cars. This presents a poor image of efficiency to the public, not to mention the mess shaving cream makes in the vehicle.``

Not to mention, either, the mess one short stop could make of the shaver`s face.

The memo Jones has selected for its use of the wordy to obscure, obfuscate and otherwise prevent illumination of an issue is this one:

specifically stated expectations, too many employees are continuing procedures best left forgotten. This lamentable lapse was specifically referred to in memo 121.4.

``All employees are kindly required to reconsult the aforementioned written communication to implement improvements that have already been mandated.``

Thus, not one but two memos--and this one 58 words long--all to tell hospital personnel to keep better tabs on their patients` charts. But, talk about wordy, there was another memo that really takes the cake.

It`s headed: ``Clarification and Utilization of Prioritized Training Codifiers`` (whatever that means), and to read it is to become so lost in its thicket of jargon it`s hard to imagine anyone ever making it out without having his (or her) language skills seriously impaired. In the interest of preserving sanity, only snippets will be quoted. You figure it out.

``The issue which continues to propel our implementation intentions into a quagmire is the question of whether to designate selected activity matrixes as `high priority` or `low priority.` . . .

``Tantamount to clarification is the careful assessment necessitated to enable the team to calculate the proper designations. Thus, strong sentiment favoring a `high priority,` but lacking assessment confirmation, should generally resolve into a `low priority,` while low to moderate sentiment favoring `low priority,` but with strong assessment reinforcement, generally should resolve into a `high priority.` . . .

``Management, with this directive, seeks to retire this issue as a roadblock to our decision-making processes once and for all. Any team member who queries about this topic in the future will be referred to this memorandum. . . .``

God help them, and in the words of Jones, ``Let us now get on with the job we are enumerated to do.``